Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el]

["Roland Winkler" <Roland.Winkler@physik.uni-erlangen.de>]

On Fri May 23 2008 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Thanks.  But while at that, could you also please change proced.el to
> not rely on an external program such as `ps', at least not explicitly?
> Every modern OS has APIs to access the same information as `ps' does;
> providing primitives to do that from Lisp will make proced.el much
> more portable than it is currently, and I think it will also be
> faster.  

I agree that some built-in functions would be much cleaner, because
the different implementations of ps already have given me some
headache. It seems that the options required by ps and the output it
generates are by far less standardized than those of ls used by
dired.

(I interpret your email such that you would consider it worth the
effort to implement this on the C level.)

My problem is just that this goes way beyond my skills.

If someone was willing and able to help me with that, I'd greatly
appreciate it. 

> The hodgepodge of OS-specific options we have in proced.el at this
> time is really ugly, IMO.

Definitely, I agree.

Roland